LOL. Just lol. Don’t try to change your arguments and make a lie.
I got a public meaning of REPLACE just for U:D
By Cambridge Dictionary, Replace commonly refers to changing an old item with a fresh one.
So, replace means deleting old one and adding new one in old one’s place.
Also, you need to argue or at least say something with below. You didn’t answered about it.
Next,
Our ground continues to here, I think.
Sadly, we are not Devs also economy assistants, so cannot precise assumptions the effects of lesser bomb to F80 and giving unique cosmetics, accessories etc.
But F80 is just a single BR5 US Squad.
However, unique cosmetics(such as hair), accessories(such as dog tag) can sell to ALL FACTIONS of ALL BRs.
Also, many axis users wanted Volkssturm Armbands for accessories or kind of cosmetics.
There are many other thing in other factions.
Most Important, They are NOT AFFECTING BALANCE forever, if DF won’t sell Armored Suits(As deleted Japan armor vest in last golden chest).
What do you think more money between two for DF? I think THE ANSWER is so clear.
Last BR3 German’s 75-rounds MG in BP, 50-rounds Thompson sold with Golds in April Fools were proposed from Forum, also many other proposals from here sold in Enlisted.
If DF cannot make money from user’s some great idea, why they sold it? User’s ideas can make actual revenue in Enlised.
Not reading under-flow of article?
I don’t wanna show you Cambridge Dictionary about IMPLY and EXAMPLE.
I just wanna show you, your over-interpret could lead into these critical conditions.
Just as said right above.
And of course my sentences were not the point and not the answer either.
Cuz those sentences are not argument, just attacking your mental conditions.
It’s not a good manner in argues and I know it, but you already lied about what you mentioned, and refusing what you said former arguments.
I am sorry to said just like that, I was just mad…
Sorry, sincerely.
But plz don’t lie. That’s Really bad:C
Lastly, and It’s not about this argue, are you using a free-AI or low cost-AI?
Lately, They want more money, so they are not servicing precise solutions or arguments over 1000~1500 characters from users.
They mostly say “We can service 2500~3000 WORDS.” But they can’t…
Be careful, dude.
F-80 is easily the best Jet in the entire game and even if it got nerfed to 2x500lb AN it would still be second best and not very far behind Kikka.
I can see Meteor receiving 2x500 M.C bombs but ONLY if its flying characteristics get nerfed into the ground like they should’ve been a week after its release at MAXIMUM
Right now Meteor air-to-ground capabilities are sub-par compared to other Jets, but its air-to-air capabilities are off the charts. Nothing can compete with this thing and until this changes its suspended armament shouldn’t change either
Excessive? You mean they have bombs? I don’t think you even have an understanding of the environment of BRV if you think a plane without bombs belongs even remotely near it… or ones with inadequate armaments.
1000lb isn’t bad at all… gives leeway for dropping bombs on tanks with the excessive speed requiring decent skill to accurately dropping them on tanks.
And 800kg for the jap one… only did that because of its low ammo count.
Turn speed? Fair enough point… they still turn slower than props besides the meteor though… so you can out turn them and come out on top in certain scenarios.
You can still use them… a 109 will have just a hard a time at killing a meteor with a skilled pilot taking advantage of their turn rate… you will have to use same strat of intercepting them from a run with either.
And again, adding a BR6 could solve this issue with its own queue, but people would rather complain about high performing stuff than add that “because it’ll kill the queues”
Yeah… like you enjoy getting matched up to 5 with jets, experimental weaponry etc when playing 4.
Excessive’s opposite is less or lower, not NONE dude…
Jet’s bombing cycle is much faster than br5 Props. Also, they have quite big bombs.
Yeah, but in WT, Meteor has 20s of turn speed and other jets are much slower. They are hard to win props with turning.
Faster bombing cycle, Big bombs, Not too slow turning. Those three factors made the Jets too much superior than br5 props and made no reason to ride props.
At least they would have smaller bombs or slow turning.
I told as above, I can ride them, you can ride them. But jets are too much superior than props, made riding props could harm to team.
I agee that A LOT.
Br5 now, not feels like WWII lol.
Auto rifles, Jets, Super heavy armored tanks etc should move to br6 and it’s matchmaking only br6, not br5~6.
i miss being able to drop 1000lb bombs for allies. All those craters used as cover and destroyed roads stopping tanks from quickly coming back was so nice
Well i’m just following what everyone else says and that’s to just remove their bombs and make them purely an interceptor.
I was just assuming you were avoiding saying that.
Tanks can have as low as 3 second reload while continuously being able to be spawned by anyone on the team over and over and over… i’ve had matches where each resupply there are one or two tanks ready to be destroyed… that’s the pace of the gameplay and the jets allow you to tame the excessive tank spam.
I don’t think the bombs are excessive either… sure they are output faster but you can’t just go back and fourth bombing with zero care… enemies can kill you or they can simply build an AA, despite what people say AA is still effective against jets, you just have to know how to use it.
A single player that is determined to camp in an AA the entire time can heavily impact the enemies air power, i’ve faced it myself… even killed them on their aa and they just build another.
They have big bombs because their performance allows them to carry them… ask yourself why your K4 doesn’t carry a 500kg bomb.
Enlisted follows the arcade mode so i’d hope you used that statistic if there is one, i know the tanks perform differently than in realistic.
No, defeating jets in a turn battle is not hard with a prop of the BR the jet is actively putting itself at a disadvantage by entering a turn fight with a plane that can do them better… if you know how to use them killing a jet in turn fight should prove no issue, it’s getting close to do said turn fight which is the issue… which can be countered by intercepting them like how you have to do as i said when fighting skilled meteor player while using a 262.
If you’re so inclined on believing that equip a Yak, 109 or a Zero… and update me on how hard it is to turn right a jet with them.
You have your own choice… it’s no different than choosing to spawn in a pz 3n over tiger 2.
And wow… jets are superior to props… who would have thought?
You are already being selfish by thinking jets should be made worse so you can fly your props… so just fly them anyway and dunk on the jets with skill… will be much more rewarding.
Likewise with me being infuriated by props being spawned in place of a jet… so there is some irony there.
It’s not supposed to… ww2 wasn’t fought entirely with the late stage equipment even towards the end.
The only nation that has pure ww2 equipment in 5 is Germany, and because people don’t like inadequacies in a factions tech tree they have chosen to introduce various prototypes to close the gap.
And quite frankly people’s idea of “balancing” isn’t valid in 5 either… it’s a tier that is composed of very high performing equipment to provide a very different experience than lower tiers… and some people enjoy that like me, i would much prefer they add a 6 instead of dumming down 5 so the weird people who play 4 can have a better time.
I think there’s a reason it was already nerfed once; I don’t believe increasing its capacity is the solution. Besides, there are bombers in the game for a reason. In general, jets are a major reason why BR5 is so hated; a single player can spend the entire match spamming jets with few ways to counter them. Not everyone has jets available at the same time or they simply don’t use planes.
NO, In BR5 there are no tanks with low as 3 second reload.
Or are you RIDING PZ3N in BR5 not Ferdinand or Tiger(II)? I don’t think so. Also, other factions tank have much slower reload.
True, but aerials too. They can spam either, and it was far worse before DF’s patch of anti-suicidal air support.
Of course. Who disagree with that?
I said jets have faster speed, bigger bombs, not too slow turning, made them superior than props. And superior means much better, not invincible.
You are another over-interpret dude I guess.
That’s because infantry users need a way to counter aerial. And he or she just used their power.
That does NOT mean they HAVE TO CARRY BIGGER BOMBS. What a stupid assumptions.
Are you arguing EVERY aerial must carry their maximum payload, cuz simply they can?
Nope, NOPE. Don’t make a LIE.
Enlisted follows REALISTIC mode than arcade thing of WT. Tank’s turret rotate speed, moving speed, etc are following WT’s realistic battle.
Just look at WT wiki and in-game Enlisted stats of tanks.
When Jets came out, many users argued they are not following WT Real like many other things.
Such a stupid one you are. Even can’t do simple Internet searching.
HUH?
In this sentences, they refers to JETS not PROPS.
Me: Jets are hard to win props with turning. Even harder in WT.
You: No, props are not hard to win jets with turning → No, Jets are hard to win props with turning.
How stupid you are, you even can’t find out what you are saying.
Said No at start, but argument and grounds actually say Yes.
It means you think props are better than jets, so you ride props fighters then jet fighters?
I guess you don’t ride props, ride jets.
You think jets are superior than props just as me. You attacked your opinion with your own words. LOL.
Nope, not only me. Many other users dislike Jets and they wouldn’t be introduced in Enlisted.
Sadly, they already implanted, so I want them move to BR6 with Auto Rifle, Heavy armored tanks, etc.
I think you partially agree about adding BR6. That’s good.
Yes, i use pz3n in BRV… also a lot of the tanks i see when using 262 are just plain sherman’s… regardless the amount of HE they can out out is akin to how much damage you can do with jet.
And what is your point? It seems like you just dislike planes.
The fact you can go back and forth quicker doesn’t mean anything when you can be killed the same as any other plane, provided you have decent skill using the AA.
Alright. Since you’re going to put labels on people here… no use in arguing with you.
Maybe if you would speak in complete sentences and not broken english i wouldn’t have a problem with understanding you… from what i saw i though you were saying for some unknown reason that it’s harder to win against a jet in turn fight while using a prop.
I think nerf 2x500lb to F80 is good idea. It’s kinda p2w in f2p game.
Also giving 2x1000lb back to Meteor with FULL FUEL is a good idea I guess.
Compare old Su-9(Full fuel) and now(Much less fuel), It had totally different aerial performance. It was worst of all jets.
When Meteor get full fuel, It’s turning speed will be at least normal or worse than other jets. Acceleration, control sensitivity will be worst of all jets.
It will suffer with aerial fight, but FREE users and Console players can easily destroy Ho-Ri, Ferdinand, Tiger(II).
I think you like PZ3N and Shermans cuz they have fast reload. But that doesn’t mean they are appropriate in BR5 battles.
They can wipe out infantries well, but can’t fight against enemy’s BR5 heavy armored tanks.
Think about why users saying Tiger(II), Ferdinand, Ho-Ri are best tank in BR5:D
No no. You shouldn’t answer like that.
You talked about tanks have fast reload and can spam with all users of team. And I said, aerial too.
What you need to say is whether you are agree or not about my opinion.
Wow. Over-interpret again?
Look what I said.
That does NOT mean, they are not vulnerable in air. As you see the word NOT INVINCIBLE.
Jets are faster than props so they can make faster ground support than props. I told about at least three times about it, and you are continuing out of a main point of this part:C
I am not labeling you. Just look what you talked about.
Hahaha, Now you blaming I have bad English to accomplish your goal and compensate your mistakes
Maybe I am, because I am a student just learning English. but look at below.
As you said, you have to be A PURE ENGLISH user. But, how could you understand “They” as props? The misunderstanding of this very short sentence is your fault. Don’t blame me.
Also, You have to say something about this,
This,
And this,
These are quite important topics of what we are talking.
You don’t need to apologize about your lie or self attacking. Because you simply not looking at WT wiki and what you said before.
BUT, you have to say something to many users who dislikes Jets just like me. Because YOU talked as all of them are selfish:C
You are focusing on the word “replace” while ignoring what I was actually talking about.
I wrote about replacing the revenue coming from premium content with revenue from cosmetics. I did not say “delete every premium squad and vehicle and replace all of them with cosmetics.”
At most, you can argue that my original wording was imprecise. Fine. But an imprecise sentence does not suddenly become the completely different argument you attributed to me, and clarifying what I meant is not “making a lie.”
My point has remained the same: you proposed reducing the F-80’s premium advantage, raised the question of how Darkflow would make money after that, and then presented cosmetics as “THE ANSWER.”
That is the claim I have been responding to.
You literally said, “No P2W in F2P game,” while arguing that the F-80 should be nerfed from 2x1000 lb to 2x500 lb.
Later, you directly asked how Darkflow could make money without the F-80’s 2x1000 lb bombs, and you answe
That is exactly why I broug
I did not invent some imaginary connection between the F-80 nerf and Darkflow’s revenue. You explicitly raised tha
So please stop calling it “over-interpreting” when I respond to the exact argument you made.
And now you are saying that neither of us is a developer or an economic analyst and therefore cannot accurately predict the financial effects, while immediately afterwards claiming that cosmetics would obviously make more money and that “THE ANSWER is so clear.”
If we do not have the data to know the financial effect, then the answer is not “so clear.” That was my point from the beginning.
That only proves that user suggestions can be turned into products and generate revenue, which I never denied.
And again, you are over-interpreting what I said. I never claimed that ideas proposed by forum users cannot make money. I said that having good ideas does not prove that enough people will buy them, or that they will generate enough revenue to make up for revenue affected elsewhere.
Turning “you haven’t shown how much money these ideas would actually make” into “you said user ideas cannot make money” is exactly the kind of over-interpretation you keep accusing me of.
And your own examples are a 75-round MG and a 50-round Thompson. Those are weapons, not balance-neutral cosmetics. So they do not even prove your specific claim that cosmetics are “THE ANSWER.”
“They sold it” proves that an idea can be monetized. It does not prove how much money it made, or that cosmetics would generate enough revenue to support the monetization model you are proposing.
If you think I implied something, then point to the exact sentence and explain how it logically implies what you claim.
Showing me dictionary definitions of “imply” or “example” does not fix the problem. The issue is not what those words mean. The issue is whether my actual words support the interpretation you are putting on them.
I said that user ideas being good does not prove sufficient demand or sufficient revenue. You turned that into “user ideas cannot make money.”
That is not something I implied. That is something you added yourself.
So before telling me I am not following the flow of the discussion, please distinguish between what I actually said and what you inferred from it.
The irony is that you are the one over-interpreting what I said here.
I said that cosmetics are not a guaranteed solution. You turned that into “if something can fail, then trying it is pointless,” and then somehow extended that all the way to “humans die, therefore life is useless.”
Those are not equivalent arguments.
My statement never contained the premise that “anything that is not guaranteed to succeed is useless.” You added that yourself.
So this analogy does not demonstrate where my argument leads. It demonstrates where your own interpretation of my argument leads.
And frankly, the analogy itself makes no sense. Saying that a business model is not guaranteed to generate enough revenue is completely different from saying that anything temporary or fallible has no value.
That is a rather strange apology, but honestly, whether you apologize politely or keep taking shots at me while doing it is not the important part.
What matters is that you keep calling me a liar while still failing to show what I actually lied about.
You admitted yourself that those comments about my “mental condition” were not arguments at all, but personal attacks. Fine. I can deal with an insult. What I am asking for is much simpler: if I lied, show me the lie.
Quote the exact sentence in which I supposedly lied. Then quote the earlier statement that contradicts it and explain the contradiction.
Because so far, you have not done that.
If this is about the word “replace,” then bringing out the Cambridge Dictionary does not help your case nearly as much as you seem to think it does.
My actual sentence was:
“PUBG and CS2 making money from cosmetics doesn’t mean Enlisted can just replace the money it gets from premium squads and vehicles with skins and uniforms.”
The thing I was talking about replacing was the money — the revenue generated by premium squads and vehicles — not physically deleting every premium squad and vehicle from the game.
Yes, I could have written that sentence more precisely as “replace that revenue with revenue from cosmetics.” Fine. But pretending that this wording means I accused you of wanting every premium squad and vehicle deleted is ridiculous, especially when the entire paragraph around it was explicitly about revenue, paying customers, sources of income, and whether cosmetics would make enough money.
You brought a dictionary into the argument and still managed to argue against the wrong object in the sentence.
That is not a dictionary problem. That is a reading problem.
I never said, “Wallo wants every premium squad and vehicle deleted.”
What I actually responded to was your own argument. You said the F-80 should be nerfed, then literally asked:
“So, how can make DF money without F80 with 2x1000lb bombs?”
And your answer was cosmetics, accessories, helmets, clothing and weapon skins — which you explicitly called “THE ANSWER.”
So yes, I questioned whether those things would actually generate enough revenue to compensate for revenue affected by changes such as the F-80 nerf.
That is not me inventing your position. That is me responding to the revenue question you raised yourself.
And this is where your accusation of “over-interpreting” becomes particularly funny.
I said that successful cosmetics in PUBG and CS2 do not prove that cosmetics would generate enough revenue for Enlisted.
You turned that into “you said cosmetics cannot be effective.”
I said that good forum ideas do not prove that enough people will buy them to make up for lost revenue.
You turned that into “you said user ideas cannot make money.”
I said I never claimed you wanted every premium squad and vehicle deleted.
You looked up the word “replace,” ignored what was actually being replaced in my sentence, and called me a liar.
At some point, if you have to repeatedly make my statements stronger than they actually were before you can argue against them, perhaps the problem is not my “over-interpretation.”
Perhaps you should take a look at your own.
There is another contradiction here that you have still not resolved.
You said yourself that neither of us is a developer or an economic analyst and therefore neither of us can precisely predict the financial effect of nerfing the F-80 or selling more cosmetics.
Fair enough.
But almost immediately afterwards, you argued that cosmetics can be sold to all factions and all BRs and concluded:
“THE ANSWER is so clear.”
No, it is not.
If neither of us has the financial data necessary to know the result, then you cannot first tell me that the effect cannot be precisely assumed and then declare your preferred answer “so clear.”
That is exactly the assumption I was criticizing from the beginning.
And your examples of the 75-round German MG and the 50-round Thompson do not fix that problem either. They prove that ideas originating from forum users can be turned into products and generate revenue.
I never denied that.
What they do not prove is how much revenue those products generated, whether cosmetics would generate comparable revenue, or whether that revenue would be enough to compensate for revenue affected elsewhere.
Worse, the examples you gave are weapons, not balance-neutral cosmetics, so they do not even demonstrate your specific claim that cosmetics are the obvious answer to monetization without affecting balance.
So please stop manufacturing stronger versions of my statements, arguing against those versions, and then calling me a liar when I point out that I never said them.
That is not catching me in a lie.
That is you losing an argument with a sentence I never wrote.
Now, I will acknowledge my own part in how this started.
I was aggressive from the beginning. I have seen far too many people immediately go from “this premium equipment is strong” to “P2W! Premium equipment must be nerfed!” and your original comment looked like another example of that to me.
So yes, my original “basic economics” post was deliberately sarcastic. I was mocking your argument, and I can understand why that annoyed you. I am sorry for that part.
And to make my actual position completely clear, I do not currently want the F-80 nerfed.
I also understand the underlying problem you are pointing at. Having to pay around $40 to gain access to two extremely effective 1,000 lb bombs is not an ideal situation, and on that specific issue I can sympathize with your concern.
What I disagreed with was your original proposal: give the Meteor 1,000 lb bombs and reduce the F-80 to 500 lb bombs.
That is what I objected to.
That is why I responded with the sarcastic “do you want the developers to starve to death?” post.
And that little warning about “free AI” or “low-cost AI” at the end was especially funny.
You spent several posts accusing me of “over-interpreting” while repeatedly turning my statements into claims I never made. Then you brought out Cambridge Dictionary, only to miss what the word “replace” was actually referring to in the sentence.
And after all of that, you decided to warn me about AI giving imprecise arguments.
Before worrying about whether an AI is good enough, you might want to make sure you are actually outperforming it.
Cambridge Dictionary can tell you what a word means. Unfortunately, it cannot read the context for you.
A pity, really. That appears to be exactly the feature you were looking for.
None of that actually explains why the Meteor should be stuck with its awful 500 lb G.P. bombs.
If jet spam is the problem, then argue for changes to jet respawns, AA, or aircraft counterplay. “Jets are annoying” is not an argument for deliberately leaving one aircraft with a useless bomb load.
And “bombers exist for a reason” is an especially strange argument. Fighters and strike aircraft are also given bombs for a reason. The game clearly intends them to perform CAS.
The actual proposal in this thread is not to turn the Meteor into some kind of strategic bomber. It is simply to replace its terrible 500 lb G.P. bombs with functional 500 lb M.C. bombs.
At this point, you are not really arguing against the actual proposal in this thread. You are arguing against jets having effective ground-attack capability at all, which is an entirely different discussion.
And that is not exactly surprising, because you have made it pretty clear that you simply do not like jets in the first place.
So if your real position is just “I hate jets, therefore the Meteor should keep bad bombs,” then say that directly. At least then we would be arguing about what you actually believe instead of pretending this is somehow a specific balance argument about the Meteor.
Ok